What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303682?

The tribunal order states: Megan Vanderwiel and Colin Vanderwiel must pay Vincent Brian Whiting

How much money was awarded in case 5303682?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,815.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $58.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303682?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13500486-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303682?

The tribunal order states: Megan Vanderwiel and Colin Vanderwiel must pay Vincent Brian Whiting

How much money was awarded in case 5303682?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,815.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $58.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303682?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13500486-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Selliera Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303682 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303682 — net $4,651.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/8/25	$6,815.00	Rent arrears to 28/8/25
Rubbish removal	$58.37	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,651.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,651.37

Order

Megan Vanderwiel and Colin Vanderwiel must pay Vincent Brian Whiting $4,651.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 (60171298-002) to Vincent Brian Whiting immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended. The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears - $8,015. b. Water rates - $553.66 c. Cleaning costs - $485. d. Rubbish removal - $58.37 e. Reimbursement of the filing fee - $28. f. Less payment of the bond - $2,250 Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Rent arrears
The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1 The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025.
The tenants disputed the rent arrears on the basis the landlord said that the rent would be reduced to $550 while the property was on the market. The landlord said this was agreed but when the house was sold the rent was to increase to the usual rent of $750. The agreement was not recorded in writing and the landlord did not inform the tenant that the rent would increase when the home was sold. The landlord did however give notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis the home was sold.
I consider it more likely than not that the landlord reduced the rent to compensate the tenants for any inconvenience of the open homes, however I consider both parties should have appreciated that once the property was sold, the inconvenience was removed and usual rent for the notice period applied, as it usually would. The tenant did not pay any rent for the last two months of the tenancy in any event.
The landlord provided rent records which say the amount owing is $8,015 to 20 August 2025.
However, there is 6 weeks where the landlord has recorded rent as $750 prior to the termination notice being served on the tenant on 7 July 2025, which I consider should have been at the rate of $550 per week pursuant to the parties agreement. I have therefore deducted $1,200 from the rent arrears and the amount ordered is $6,815. 1 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. Water rates
The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 2 Following a discussion at the hearing the tenant had paid the base charges during the tenancy, for which the tenant is not liable for, the landlord withdrew the claim for water rates. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 3
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice for $485 for deep cleaning of the premises. Photographs of the floors during the cleaning process from the main room were submitted by the landlord, however the landlord attended to the carpet cleaning himself and did not seek carpet cleaning costs.
The landlord relied on the invoice and his oral evidence in support of the claim for cleaning costs. The landlord suggested calling his real estate agent to give evidence, however the agent did not answer the phone calls and the landlord elected to proceed, rather than have the matter adjourned for the agent to give evidence when they are available.
The tenants say they cleaned the premises.
In the absence of photographic evidence of the premises to show that it was not reasonably clean and tidy I consider the landlord has not proven the claim in respect of cleaning and it is dismissed.
The landlord provided a refuse receipt for $58.37 and photographs of rubbish that required removal. The tenant disputed the claim for rubbish.
We discussed whether the rubbish could have gone out in the usual rubbish collection, however the tenant’s missed that as it was the day prior to their vacate day. In any event some of the rubbish (in particular the mats) may not have fit in the rubbish bins. The tenant’s say the landlord did not offer them the chance to remove their rubbish, however the landlord is not required to offer the tenant’s further time or opportunity to meet their 2 See section 39 RTA. 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. obligations at the end of the tenancy. I find that tenants did not remove all their rubbish and the refuse fee is ordered accordingly. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the application filing fee of $28. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 5
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression. I consider the tenants were not substantially successful in defending the substantive claim of rent arrears, and in having regards to the level of rent arrears, I consider the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interest in name suppression. Name suppression for the tenants is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303682 — net $4,651.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/8/25	$6,815.00	Rent arrears to 28/8/25
Rubbish removal	$58.37	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,651.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,651.37

Order

Megan Vanderwiel and Colin Vanderwiel must pay Vincent Brian Whiting $4,651.37 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 (60171298-002) to Vincent Brian Whiting immediately.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has ended. The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears - $8,015. b. Water rates - $553.66 c. Cleaning costs - $485. d. Rubbish removal - $58.37 e. Reimbursement of the filing fee - $28. f. Less payment of the bond - $2,250 Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Rent arrears
The tenant must pay the rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1 The tenancy ended on 20 August 2025.
The tenants disputed the rent arrears on the basis the landlord said that the rent would be reduced to $550 while the property was on the market. The landlord said this was agreed but when the house was sold the rent was to increase to the usual rent of $750. The agreement was not recorded in writing and the landlord did not inform the tenant that the rent would increase when the home was sold. The landlord did however give notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis the home was sold.
I consider it more likely than not that the landlord reduced the rent to compensate the tenants for any inconvenience of the open homes, however I consider both parties should have appreciated that once the property was sold, the inconvenience was removed and usual rent for the notice period applied, as it usually would. The tenant did not pay any rent for the last two months of the tenancy in any event.
The landlord provided rent records which say the amount owing is $8,015 to 20 August 2025.
However, there is 6 weeks where the landlord has recorded rent as $750 prior to the termination notice being served on the tenant on 7 July 2025, which I consider should have been at the rate of $550 per week pursuant to the parties agreement. I have therefore deducted $1,200 from the rent arrears and the amount ordered is $6,815. 1 See section 40 (1)(a) of the RTA. Water rates
The tenant is responsible for water consumption charges. 2 Following a discussion at the hearing the tenant had paid the base charges during the tenancy, for which the tenant is not liable for, the landlord withdrew the claim for water rates. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 3
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided an invoice for $485 for deep cleaning of the premises. Photographs of the floors during the cleaning process from the main room were submitted by the landlord, however the landlord attended to the carpet cleaning himself and did not seek carpet cleaning costs.
The landlord relied on the invoice and his oral evidence in support of the claim for cleaning costs. The landlord suggested calling his real estate agent to give evidence, however the agent did not answer the phone calls and the landlord elected to proceed, rather than have the matter adjourned for the agent to give evidence when they are available.
The tenants say they cleaned the premises.
In the absence of photographic evidence of the premises to show that it was not reasonably clean and tidy I consider the landlord has not proven the claim in respect of cleaning and it is dismissed.
The landlord provided a refuse receipt for $58.37 and photographs of rubbish that required removal. The tenant disputed the claim for rubbish.
We discussed whether the rubbish could have gone out in the usual rubbish collection, however the tenant’s missed that as it was the day prior to their vacate day. In any event some of the rubbish (in particular the mats) may not have fit in the rubbish bins. The tenant’s say the landlord did not offer them the chance to remove their rubbish, however the landlord is not required to offer the tenant’s further time or opportunity to meet their 2 See section 39 RTA. 3 See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA. obligations at the end of the tenancy. I find that tenants did not remove all their rubbish and the refuse fee is ordered accordingly. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant pay the landlord the application filing fee of $28. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 5
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants applied for name suppression. I consider the tenants were not substantially successful in defending the substantive claim of rent arrears, and in having regards to the level of rent arrears, I consider the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interest in name suppression. Name suppression for the tenants is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303682 — Rent arrears at 10 Selliera Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303682 — Rent arrears at 10 Selliera Place, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions